Somewhere in Germany sit stocks of handsets from Google Inc. (GOOG) subsidiary Motorola Mobility. The handsets were seized by German authorities after the courts found that the onboard mobile operating system likely violated user interface and file system patents owned by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) makers of the ubiquitous Windows operating system. Soon the handsets may be destroyed.

The owners founded a startup named SurfCast. They describe it, writing:

SurfCast designs Operating System technology and has four issued patents with additional applications pending.

SurfCast designed a new concept referred to as 'Tiles'.

Tiles can be thought of as dynamically updating icons. A Tile is different from an icon because it can be both selectable and live -- containing refreshed content that provides a real-time or near-real-time view of the underlying information.

Tiles can provide dynamic bookmarking -- an at-a-glance view of the current status of the program, file, or content associated with it.

Tiles enable people to have all their content, applications, and resources, regardless of whether on their mobile device, tablet, computer, or in their Cloud -- visualized persistently -- dynamically updating.

It's hard to deny Microsoft's Live Tiles narrowly mirror the technology described in SurfStar's patents, which came out before the Live Tiles landed as part of the "Metro UI" in Windows Phone's 2009 launch.

SurfStar's Live Tiles (left) are uncannily like Microsoft's Live Tiles (right).

Microsoft appears to have known for some time about SurfStar's IP, so this suit shouldn't come as a big surprise. The electronics giant in 2005 tried to patent Live Tiles with U.S. Patent 7,933,632. The patent was finally granted in 2011, but only after Microsoft cited SurfStar's "relevant prior art".

The SurfStar suit targets "Windows Phone, Microsoft Surface with the Windows RT Operating System, Microsoft Windows RT, Microsoft Windows 8, Microsoft Windows 8 Pro, and Microsoft Windows 8 Enterprise Operating System" -- pretty much all of Microsoft's next-gen operating system platform. SurfStar also suggest that devices with Windows 8 or Windows 8 apps that use animated Live Tiles may also be in infringement and potentially liable for future damages.

SurfStar asks the court to force Microsoft to "account and pay to SurfCast all damages caused to SurfCast by reason of Microsoft’s patent infringement."

On the surface (no pun intended) it appears that SurfStar has a compelling and valid case, but it's always hard to pick out savvy trolls from earnest inventors. Either way, the turn of events is certainly highly ironic, given the hell Microsoft has put Android through in terms of aggressive intellectual property threats and litigation.

Ironically Google has yet to defend a single Android manufacturer. Microsoft has. Frankly if you are a hardware company you would like it if your Software provider could use its large corporate influence to protect you from their rivals.

Okay I mean no offense, but I expect a staffer here at DT to have a little more technical knowledge than this.

Google absolutely cannot "defend" the manufacturers because they aren't responsible for the lawsuits. For example Samsung was sued by Apple, and lost, because of hardware designs of the phones itself and their custom "TouchWiz" Android UI scheme. None of this is Google's fault, therefore they can't just "defend" them in court.

You're making it seem like they are just being sued because they use Android, and I seriously doubt you don't know better. Honestly can we put this FUD to bed now? I'm tired of hearing how Google won't "defend" people from their own wrongdoings (in the eyes of the law).

1. If you sell a device then you are liable for any patents that device infringes. (any disagreement so far?)2. If some part of that device comes from elsewhere then you are still liable because you are the one manufacturing and selling it. (still with me?)3. Microsoft agrees to indemnify anyone who is sued because of a part (the OS) that they supplied. (is this the part that is BS?)4. Google does not. (am I lying yet?)

1. It does not have to be a stock version of android so long as an infringing part of android is still present. Stop acting like you know the details of the violation or settlement.2. WTF Does apple have to do with an MS vs Android OEM settlement? Spare me the red herring and get back to which of the 4 statements above is false.

You are welcome to tell yourself that I am wrong but it doesn't make it so. Here, allow me to demonstrate...

You. Are. A. Monkey. (unless a banana just appeared in your hand when you read that then it's safe to say logic doesn't work that way)

This was never even about the "settlement", that's a different conversation, this is about the accusation of Kenobi that Google isn't "defending" it's OEM's. I'm simply pointing out, again, the fact that the OEM's got in trouble for hardware designs, and custom Android UI modifications. NOTHING Google can defend against.

This is the last time I'm explaining this. If you're too fucking stupid to understand common sense and logic, go waste someone else's time.

Also, the original assumption was not correct. Google has assisted Samsung and HTC with litigation advice and some costs when it's been appropriate.

Having said that, Google should not be responsible for the last win Apple had over Samsung. Samsung's own internal communications clearly indicated a path of copying Apple's designs for the Galaxy S1 phone.

I dislike software design patents all together, but there are some things Google should keep its hands out of.

Instead of having an outright temper tantrum, begin by pointing out which of my assertions is incorrect:

quote:It's not FUD in the slightest.

1. If you sell a device then you are liable for any patents that device infringes. (any disagreement so far?)2. If some part of that device comes from elsewhere then you are still liable because you are the one manufacturing and selling it. (still with me?)3. Microsoft agrees to indemnify anyone who is sued because of a part (the OS) that they supplied. (is this the part that is BS?)4. Google does not. (am I lying yet?)

Explain to me which part is FUD?

It may very well be that the reason your point is not coming across is that you are explaining it inadequately, or it is flat out wrong . That doesn't seem to be a reality you are capable of facing so you keep getting mad at your reader.

I believe the flaw that your thoughts keep circling around is that you think you know the details of the settlement. In your mind it is exclusively hardware and UI. Since each settlement involves different hardware and UI yet contains the common Android OS it would imply otherwise. Yet here is the key: You don't know. Neither do I. One of us gets that we don't know it. The other is stomping around red faced and mad with spittle on their chin.